Don't bite my head off, but is MCT just the next "flavor of the month"?

[vmsurbat]

Wow, getting a little snippy, eh? Of course it's flavor of the month, but the question is whether it's going to turn out to be a GOOD flavor, an enduring one. I haven't seen anyone commenting on the writing. We have yes votes so far for the grammar and vocab. Anybody like the writing? Anyone want to summarize his approach over the years and compare/contrast it to something like WTM?

 

Others already shared two key aspects of MCT's approach to writing: correctness and ideas first.

 

Four other aspects that strike me (from the Essay book):

 

1. He tells the truth about writing from the beginning. What do I mean by that? He outrightly bonks the myth that essays are 5 paragraphs and that a single sentence can't be a paragraph. He acknowledges that language does not always fit in our neat grammar boxes (though MOST of the time it does) and that complex writing demands complex thinking and is the most fun! Instead he teaches that the 5 paragraph essay is merely a model to learn how to write essays and that is all it is; and if a single sentence adequately takes care of the ideas inherent in a paragraph, any more is superfluous.

 

2. At the Essay level, each "chapter" includes several examples of REAL essays--from history and from examples he made up--which are analyzed with respect to the chapter's focus.

 

3. Every chapter reviews the principles of correct grammar, word choice, sentence structure, punctuation. Subsequent chapters layer on additional information regarding these topics PLUS essay writing. Good writing requires ALL these ALL the time. He has very high standards to which he holds his students. A sample "teacher comments" on a student paper is a full page of explicit comments as he addresses all the above in every major paper.

 

4. He expects children to *think* and apply what they've been taught (ie. this is not formulaic instruction ala IEW or CW with a checklist of what to include).

 

HTH,

Edited December 8, 2009 by vmsurbat

[Mom-ninja.]

I haven't read any of the other posts, but yes it is just the herd mentality again.

 

Well, I think following the Hive herd isn't too shabby. ;)

 

 

 

I, for one, am appreciative that people take the time to talk about resources they love. Many resources would not have come to my attention without this forum. Some of the resources catch my eye and some of them don't. I am more than willing to do a bit of research on my own because in the end it's my decision what materials we use.

 

I am also very grateful to people who try things and post what their experiences are. It gives me a starting point.

 

 

Someone has to try stuff out and talk about it here, or the rest of us won't have a clear picture of all our options. :-) The greater number of people who try out a resource, the clearer the picture of whether it will be a good fit for a particular family/child.

 

Hooray, for people who do try new things and write about it. I also appreciapte people who stick to one curriculum faithfully, and write about why they do. It all helps me and others.

[Stacy in NJ]

yes.

 

:iagree:

 

It's As the Curriculum Turns.

 

If you've been visiting these boards long enough, you'll notice how certain curriulums come into favor, fall out of favor, and then the cycle begins all over again.

 

It is great that there is a variety available, but sometimes there is also a poverty of riches. That doesn't mean folks shouldn't look at and use new(ish) curriculum, but bandwagoning can be counterproductive.:001_smile:

[PeterPan]

Well that's oversimplifying too, hehe. I know some kids with high IQ's who LIKE filling in blanks. That's more just personality. Gifted just means more: more content, more flexibility, more questioning, more thought, more discussion, more need. Methods are partly personality and partly what they've been raised to. You can have a high IQ student who is perfectly content to plod through BJU or Abeka straight because it's what they're used to and expect. They just kick it up outside those constraints. There's a certain amount of gifted worship that occurs in gifted education, rather like the child-centered unschooling. It's very easy to sacrifice quality and content as they seek to unmoor and "fit" the dc. There's a certain amount of character that occurs in doing something you don't want to, and not all gifted kids want to do the things they need to do. In other words, gifted curriculum isn't necessarily better, but it's responding to a perceived need to think more, discuss more, analyze more, be creative more, question more. The basics (R&S grammar, Horizons math, etc.) don't do that, but they sure do a solid job of getting the basics done. And without that knowledge, you CAN'T go farther. In other words, a teacher can take the basics and make them pop for a gifted child, but you aren't necessarily going to feel confident you're nailing the basics when you use gifted materials. You can't do it all, and it's a matter of focus. We can sit here and quibble, but I've been on both sides of it and have concluded we'll focus on the basics and make things pop as we can. It's too easy to do the opposite and not nail the basics. I've seen it too much.

[EKS]

I'll be interested in hearing any answers you get. Maybe this would deserve it's own thread, even.

 

My own viewpoint would be that gifted = less review, faster pace, earlier age, & more advanced vocab. Geared for kids who are *interested* in academics and absorb them quickly and want more, but who are pained in the extreme when academics are repetitive and moving slowly and uninteresting.

 

Now this wouldn't encompass all situations. Some kids, like my youngest, pick things up easily (learned to read on his own), but don't really like academics. So he isn't necessarily one for whom gifted materials are designed. But gifted materials might help with some of his traits such as his knack for filling in blanks & not really paying attention -- you can't do that so easily with MCT.

 

I think the same curriculum can be used by all kinds of kids, but maybe at a different pace etc. For example, Singapore Math seems to work with all kinds of kids.

 

Julie

 

I would agree with this.

 

The other thing would be that a resource targeting gifted kids would appeal to a younger age but with more advanced work. This appeal might be emotional, as in the case of the story associated with Grammar Island, or it might be a formatting thing, with a good example being the Singapore math books with the workbook format extending through 6th grade material.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Well that's oversimplifying too, hehe. I know some kids with high IQ's who LIKE filling in blanks. That's more just personality. Gifted just means more: more content, more flexibility, more questioning, more thought, more discussion, more need. Methods are partly personality and partly what they've been raised to. You can have a high IQ student who is perfectly content to plod through BJU or Abeka straight because it's what they're used to and expect. They just kick it up outside those constraints. There's a certain amount of gifted worship that occurs in gifted education, rather like the child-centered unschooling. It's very easy to sacrifice quality and content as they seek to unmoor and "fit" the dc. There's a certain amount of character that occurs in doing something you don't want to, and not all gifted kids want to do the things they need to do. In other words, gifted curriculum isn't necessarily better, but it's responding to a perceived need to think more, discuss more, analyze more, be creative more, question more. The basics (R&S grammar, Horizons math, etc.) don't do that, but they sure do a solid job of getting the basics done. And without that knowledge, you CAN'T go farther. In other words, a teacher can take the basics and make them pop for a gifted child, but you aren't necessarily going to feel confident you're nailing the basics when you use gifted materials. You can't do it all, and it's a matter of focus. We can sit here and quibble, but I've been on both sides of it and have concluded we'll focus on the basics and make things pop as we can. It's too easy to do the opposite and not nail the basics. I've seen it too much.

In my experience with myself and DD so far ITA!! So in your informed opinion, MCT does not nail the basics?

[Melissa in CA]

Well that's oversimplifying too, hehe. I know some kids with high IQ's who LIKE filling in blanks. That's more just personality. Gifted just means more: more content, more flexibility, more questioning, more thought, more discussion, more need. Methods are partly personality and partly what they've been raised to. You can have a high IQ student who is perfectly content to plod through BJU or Abeka straight because it's what they're used to and expect. They just kick it up outside those constraints. There's a certain amount of gifted worship that occurs in gifted education, rather like the child-centered unschooling. It's very easy to sacrifice quality and content as they seek to unmoor and "fit" the dc. There's a certain amount of character that occurs in doing something you don't want to, and not all gifted kids want to do the things they need to do. In other words, gifted curriculum isn't necessarily better, but it's responding to a perceived need to think more, discuss more, analyze more, be creative more, question more. The basics (R&S grammar, Horizons math, etc.) don't do that, but they sure do a solid job of getting the basics done. And without that knowledge, you CAN'T go farther. In other words, a teacher can take the basics and make them pop for a gifted child, but you aren't necessarily going to feel confident you're nailing the basics when you use gifted materials. You can't do it all, and it's a matter of focus. We can sit here and quibble, but I've been on both sides of it and have concluded we'll focus on the basics and make things pop as we can. It's too easy to do the opposite and not nail the basics. I've seen it too much.

 

Having a gifted child (19 yo) I can most definitely say that I agree with what Elizabeth has said here...which is typical of me...I am an Elizabeth groupie. :D:lol:

 

Personally, I don't know anything about MCT. I have looked at the samples online, but from what I have seen it's just plain odd. I'm tired of odd. Give me the tried and the true. I've been burned too many times by the flavor of the month. :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

I was not impressed by the Grammar samples, but from what people say about it I am wanting to give it a try.

[Matryoshka]

So in your informed opinion, MCT does not nail the basics?

 

Just curious as to Elizabeth's opinion earlier - are you using MCT, or is your opinon on gifted materials in general? It's one thing to say "many gifted materials sacrifice the basics for discussion and high-interest because gifted kids pick up the basics by osmosis", and saying that's true of *all* gifted materials, or MCT in particular.

 

Here's my opinion on the basics with MCT. I think it very much covers the basics. However, I think if kids have no previous background *and* are not gifted, I think that the intro in the initial grammar books might be a bit slim for them to apply in the Practice books - it covers it all, but quickly. I think there is plenty of practice in the practice books and all through the curriculum. With a teacher who knows her stuff, it can be explained and reinforced in that context.

 

For my kids who are bright and good at grammar but not gifted, I'm glad we did a year of Easy Grammar first. Being able to identify the prep. phrases first makes it easier to analyze the rest of the sentence. Although that may be the teacher (me) that needed to go through that step more than the students - for my younger dd, who is also bright but more mathy than LA oriented, I'll probably skip EG as now I'll just know to teach her to identify prep phrases first.

 

And heavens, as much as I liked EG as a one-off, doing more than one year of it would've killed me - it's just the same thing over again! MCT I'm looking forward to doing year after year - in fact, I can hardly wait!

Edited December 8, 2009 by matroyshka

[Abbeygurl4]

what I've been looking for!

 

Can someone help me figure out where to start?

 

My son is 10.5. He reading and vocabulary skills are probably at the gifted level. BUT .... his grammar and writing and handwriting skills are atrocious!

 

I've been to the website but my A.D.D. brain is having trouble figuring it all out. What do I start with?

 

Thank you!

 

Ann

[Spy Car]

Others already shared two key aspects of MCT's approach to writing: correctness and ideas first.

 

Four other aspects that strike me (from the Essay book):

 

1. He tells the truth about writing from the beginning. What do I mean by that? He outrightly bonks the myth that essays are 5 paragraphs and that a single sentence can't be a paragraph. He acknowledges that language does not always fit in our neat grammar boxes (though MOST of the time it does) and that complex writing demands complex thinking and is the most fun! Instead he teaches that the 5 paragraph essay is merely a model to learn how to write essays and that is all it is; and if a single sentence adequately takes care of the ideas inherent in a paragraph, any more is superfluous.

 

2. At the Essay level, each "chapter" includes several examples of REAL essays--from history and from examples he made up--which are analyzed with respect to the chapter's focus.

 

3. Every chapter reviews the principles of correct grammar, word choice, sentence structure, punctuation. Subsequent chapters layer on additional information regarding these topics PLUS essay writing. Good writing requires ALL these ALL the time. He has very high standards to which he holds his students. A sample "teacher comments" on a student paper is a full page of explicit comments as he addresses all the above in every major paper.

 

4. He expects children to *think* and apply what they've been taught (ie. this is not formulaic instruction ala IEW or CW with a checklist of what to include).

 

HTH,

 

Thank you for this highly informative post! :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Heather in WI]

If you've been visiting these boards long enough, you'll notice how certain curricula come into favor, fall out of favor, and then the cycle begins all over again.

 

It is great that there is a variety available, but sometimes there is also a poverty of riches. That doesn't mean folks shouldn't look at and use new(ish) curriculum, but bandwagoning can be counterproductive.

 

:iagree:

 

I just posted in another thread about this. One of the biggest lessons I have learned is not to buy curriculum based on a recommendation unless the person has actually *used* and *finished* the program! There is a honeymoon stage that homeschoolers go through with new curriculum. Do not run out and buy anything immediately after an encounter with a person in this stage. LOL!

[nmoira]

I was not impressed by the Grammar samples, but from what people say about it I am wanting to give it a try.

I don't think it's the goal of the elementary materials to teach parts of speech, parts of a sentence, etc., but rather to integrate these concepts into an examination of the larger system of language. Grammar Island in particular may look light at first glance, but it's a solid introduction to MCT's four level sentence analysis... and, Grammar Town jumps right into verbals. Yes, the material -- particularly in the elementary series -- is presented in a whimsical manner, but it stays on topic, and the silly stories ending each section cannot be understood without a solid grasp of the underlying materials (e.g. the game between time and place prepositions in Grammar Island).

[Melissa in CA]

:iagree:

 

I just posted in another thread about this. One of the biggest lessons I have learned is not to buy curriculum based on a recommendation unless the person has actually *used* and *finished* the program! There is a honeymoon stage that homeschoolers go through with new curriculum. Do not run out and buy anything immediately after an encounter with a person in this stage. LOL!

 

:lol::lol::lol: I totally agree!

[LizzyBee]

4. He expects children to *think* and apply what they've been taught (ie. this is not formulaic instruction ala IEW or CW with a checklist of what to include).

 

HTH,

 

Interesting that you put IEW and CW in the same category. I bought IEW and tried to like it, but I just can't do the formulas and checklists. That's not what good writing is. OTOH, I love CW because of the analysis and thinking that's required. I've read all the threads about MCT (and looked at a friend's MCT books), and it seems to me that the goals and outcomes of MCT and CW are similar. I'm going to stick with CW since we already have it and I'm seeing great results.

[Melissa in CA]

I have a question...

 

Would you say that MCT approaches LA in the same manner as LOF approaches math? They appear similar to me, but I have only seen online samples of MCT. I have, in fact, bought LOF though and it was soooo not for us. Talky, talky, TALKY math was not a good fit for my son. The story jabber was very distracting. If MCT is somewhat the same then I know it's not even an option here, no matter how 'flavorful' it is. ;)

[nmoira]

 

Would you say that MCT approaches LA in the same manner as LOF approaches math?

Schmidt tends to stray, occasionally into asides to his asides, and much of the material in LoF has little to do with the topic at hand (that said, we're big fans). MCT stays on topic.

[Spy Car]

I don't think it's the goal of the elementary materials to teach parts of speech, parts of a sentence, etc., but rather to integrate these concepts into an examination of the larger system of language. Grammar Island in particular may look light at first glance, but it's a solid introduction to MCT's four level sentence analysis... and, Grammar Town jumps right into verbals. Yes, the material -- particularly in the elementary series -- is presented in a whimsical manner, but it stays on topic, and the silly stories ending each section cannot be understood without a solid grasp of the underlying materials (e.g. the game between time and place prepositions in Grammar Island).

 

I can remember "way back when", when you were basically the only person I knew using the MCT materials.

 

But after researching the alternatives, and looking at the MCT videos and samples (especially when they finally put up the poetry samples, after some nudging) they seem perfectly suited to our needs.

 

I'm only heartened that more people are using MCT now, and reporting back that their experiences are exactly what I'd hope ours might be.

 

I'm very excited to use these materials in the future. Thank you for being a "pioneer".

 

Bill

Edited December 8, 2009 by Spy Car

[Lovedtodeath]

But after researching the alternatives, and looking at the MCT videos and samples (especially when they finally put up the poetry samples, after some nudging) they seem perfectly suited to our needs.

Will you continue afterschooling, or do you plan to use these as your son's only language arts?

[PeterPan]

So in your informed opinion, MCT does not nail the basics?

 

I didn't say that. :)

 

Matroyshka-

I said exactly what I wanted to say, exactly as I wanted to say it. I said nothing about osmosis, only focus, and I don't think I said anything negative about MCT. :) I've looked at it quite a bit on and off, pondered it, and asked the question to Cynthia because I sincerely wanted to know. But I'm not looking for a replacement for the lower level materials. I'm wanting to see where it's GOING and what its progression is over the long-term. To be crass, anybody can make a 3rd or 4th grade grammar pop, but how does it compare to rigorous materials in the higher grades? That's what I want to know.

 

Now I'll throw something out here that bugs me occasionally. People seem to think WTM is so very basic (or so very unrealistic, depending on who you're talking too, hehe), and yet if you meet SWB, she is profoundly gifted. In other words, WTM is the way JW chose to educate SWB, the way SWB educates her kids, all of whom are either moderately or profoundly gifted. I think she's chosen to mainstream the recs a bit so that people with more advanced (or struggling) kids have to go up or down a bit. That's reasonable. But it should be striking to us that, given the chance, a highly educated, profoundly gifted person educates her kids in the manner of WTM. I think if you really look at the comments, some of what you have happening is people seeing in MCT, spelled out, concepts that were in WTM all along. This discussion of grammar was in there all along. Using real literature to teach and crossing things over was in there all along. Discuss, oral narration, getting thoughts into words before you ever attempt to put them on paper, this was in there all along. So people are having these lightning bolts with MCT, saying it has revolutionized their grammar or writing instruction. I think it's the MOMs learning how to teach. It's what some of us were doing all along.

 

That's just the plain and simple truth. The same curriculum in the hands of different people comes out different ways. I say anything that makes you a better teacher and helps you to implement your goals is a good thing. I think some people learn enough or get enough experience that they find it easier to work with more streamlined materials because they are able to make them pop for themselves. But if using MCT for a season teaches you things, helps you learn how to teach, or gives you new tricks, that's AWESOME. But to think it is academically superior to some of the really strong options out there may or may not be accurate, at least not over the long-haul. I don't know, haven't had it in-hand. But that's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for specifics on whether it covers rhetoric at the high school level the way CW or the WTM's progression would. It looks to me like MCT does a very fine job of what it does do in the lower grades that I've looked at samples of so far. But I'm not sure the goals and coverage are the same. It goes back to what I was saying in focus. I'm not sure it's TRYING to be a rhetoric or progymnasta approach, so of course it's not going to do those things.

 

I'm pretty convinced you're never going to find perfection in any curriculum. You accept the trade-offs. I think using something that helps you become a better teacher is a great thing. Each person is just deciding their trade-offs and what they need the most. Also, there are some years, especially grades 1-6, where you have a lot of flexibility. Any math done consistently will get you to pre-algebra. Any grammar done consistently will probably be fine. Some kind of writing program, any writing program, will probably set you up well. But at some point you have to pick a path and get serious. You can't just pick up CW at the end of the sequence, kwim? You have to decide what you want. Some programs are relatively interchangeable, and I think it's a fun idea to rotate between them and balance their strengths and weaknesses. But to assume all programs are equal or get you to the same place in the end is silly.

 

But like I said, I'm ALL FOR people using anything that makes them a better teacher. We did WP for a bit, and it opened up to us a new way of working together, taught us some tricks. That's good! WP has some flaws that could make it flavor of the month, and yet it did us some good. So to me, not only is it none of my business what people use, but I don't have a problem with people using MCT even if it does turn out to be a herd mentality decision. I'm just looking for accurate information on exactly what their goals are, what they cover, etc. As long as we have that, people can make accurate decisions for themselves.

 

And to the people who've posted so far in response to my question about the writing, thanks!!! (if you've read this far, haha) I REALLY appreciate each clarification, and it has been very helpful.

Edited December 8, 2009 by OhElizabeth

[Spy Car]

Will you continue afterschooling, or do you plan to use these as your son's only language arts?

 

Feels like a "when did you stop beating your wife" question :lol:

 

I plan to use these at home. I like that they seem "efficient" in terms of time, but are also parent/teacher involved. These will be part of our "family time" with my son and my wife (the English major).

 

The school my son attends (a good one) will do whatever they do. But my intention is to run a parallel program of math and language arts at home.

 

We won't have "all the time in the world" so programs that "grind" would not be particularly useful. And he's proving to be a child who is fast on the up-take. We have certainly been inspired by the samples.

 

So I think MCT is going to be our LA program. I'm only dreading "the wait".

 

Bill

[christine in al]

We are using both MCT and LOF. and I find them to be similar in their tone.

 

AND We are using LOF and MCT as add-ons to Right Start and FLL and WWE. I too have thought of a similar " feel"..

If the " talky" style of LOF bugs you , then MCT, might not be for you.

 

I like the straight forward style of FLL, ( and for ME.. I needed to know the grammar basics. MCT assumes I know stuff I would not have known.. being a product of Alabama public schools. So, for the teacher to have a clue is helpful. My kids are really liking Grammar Island and we are TALKING about language outside the lessons.. That's pretty cool.

 

If you aren't completely taken by it,, I'd look at it some more.

 

There really is something called , " NRE" New Relationship Energy, the "crush" stage of a relationship and lots of us are here with MCT...

That said, I was once at the crush stage with my husband of 26 years.

Excitement ain't all bad.

 

cheers.

~Christine in AL

[MariannNOVA]

There really is something called , " NRE" New Relationship Energy, the "crush" stage of a relationship and lots of us are here with MCT...

That said, I was once at the crush stage with my husband of 26 years.

Excitement ain't all bad.

 

cheers.

~Christine in AL

 

That was cute!!!!!!:laugh:

[Miss Marple]

So what's his basic approach to essay writing?

 

Grammar and writing have always been the area where I have felt insecure. However, the boys have always done very well with both - in fact their SAT/ACT scores are always very high in Critical Reading and Writing. So I must have done something right, but I never feel/felt that I had a handle on it or a plan or a real goal other than to "be a good writer".

 

I have used IEW, Jensen's, Writing Strands, Rod & Staff, and others but have always felt that these programs were offering a "method" and one had to learn to write according to their check off lists, venn diagrams, outlines, notecards, etc. To me it leads to stilted writing and the student's personality doesn't come through. So I have, over the years, simply helped the boys write and re-write.

 

Like I said earlier, I have just started using the writing program so I may think differently in the future. But the idea of reading classic literature, learning style through classic literature, learning correct writing with correct terminology (no "dress-ups", "completers", "describers" etc.) and not trying to squish a student into a stylistic mold really appeals to me. It isn't fluffy, I don't have to learn a "method" before teaching, the grammar and vocabulary the boys are learning is reinforced, and the activities are varied. To me, his writing program is simply an extension of reading and grammar. I guess it just feels natural to me. Is it better than other programs? Probably not, but it fits my teaching style and the boys' learning styles so that makes it something we *will* get done.

 

I'm glad MCT materials were mentioned here earlier this year because I had not heard of them. I seem get my best information from the folks on this board.

[MariannNOVA]

Grammar and writing have always been the area where I have felt insecure. However, the boys have always done very well with both - in fact their SAT/ACT scores are always very high in Critical Reading and Writing. So I must have done something right, but I never feel/felt that I had a handle on it or a plan or a real goal other than to "be a good writer".

 

I have used IEW, Jensen's, Writing Strands, Rod & Staff, and others but have always felt that these programs were offering a "method" and one had to learn to write according to their check off lists, venn diagrams, outlines, notecards, etc. To me it leads to stilted writing and the student's personality doesn't come through. So I have, over the years, simply helped the boys write and re-write.

 

Like I said earlier, I have just started using the writing program so I may think differently in the future. But the idea of reading classic literature, learning style through classic literature, learning correct writing with correct terminology (no "dress-ups", "completers", "describers" etc.) and not trying to squish a student into a stylistic mold really appeals to me. It isn't fluffy, I don't have to learn a "method" before teaching, the grammar and vocabulary the boys are learning is reinforced, and the activities are varied. To me, his writing program is simply an extension of reading and grammar. I guess it just feels natural to me. Is it better than other programs? Probably not, but it fits my teaching style and the boys' learning styles so that makes it something we *will* get done.

 

I'm glad MCT materials were mentioned here earlier this year because I had not heard of them. I seem get my best information from the folks on this board.

 

Thanks!:001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

I didn't say that. :)

 

That is why I asked. I value your opinion. I still have FLL 3, GWG 3, WWE 3, WT 1, and MCT in the running. I thought I had settled on WT, then I thought I was just going to trust Susan... I am mostly afraid of boredom.

 

Now I'll throw something out here that bugs me occasionally. People seem to think WTM is so very basic (or so very unrealistic, depending on who you're talking too, hehe), and yet if you meet SWB, she is profoundly gifted. In other words, WTM is the way JW chose to educate SWB, the way SWB educates her kids, all of whom are either moderately or profoundly gifted. I think she's chosen to mainstream the recs a bit so that people with more advanced (or struggling) kids have to go up or down a bit. That's reasonable. But it should be striking to us that, given the chance, a highly educated, profoundly gifted person educates her kids in the manner of WTM.

Yes. Many times I will tell myself that if it is Grammar and Writing, I think Jessie and Susan are the ones to trust!

[Lovedtodeath]

Like I said earlier, I have just started using the writing program so I may think differently in the future. But the idea of reading classic literature, learning style through classic literature, learning correct writing with correct terminology

So is MCT good because of the literature that one reads while doing the program? Is it not enough if I don't plan to read the recommended literature?

 

So I think MCT is going to be our LA program. I'm only dreading "the wait".

I asked only because I worry about MCT being enough. :) Of course, I also worry about FLL being enough. GWG is what I remember from school so I tend to gravitate to it.

[Caitilin]

LTD,

 

I think that even if you don't read MCT's list of Classic Literature (read in snooty tone! :)), and you read SWB's instead, you'll accomplish the same end. It's not as if, I presume, that you intend to read no classic lit at all, right? If not, then you'd be fine with MCT, provided you were reading something of more substance than, say, Nancy Drew on a regular basis. :)

[Miss Marple]

Is it not enough if I don't plan to read the recommended literature?

 

I'm sorry, I'm not explaining well. The classic literature is read in the writing program, but it is not full works. One might read a selection from Peter Pan, look over the vocabulary, dissect the sentence structure, look at a series of similar writings to determine which is by the same author, and then writing something similar or researching a point in the writing and writing a paragraph about what was learned, etc.

 

So, the reading component of the writing is usually just a page or two of literature. We are not doing the complete reading program (Classics in the Classroom) because I'm completely satisfied with what I'm already doing.

[LanaTron]

I think materials for gifted students also help them get the depth and connections they need, not just faster paced, etc.

[nmoira]

We are not doing the complete reading program (Classics in the Classroom) because I'm completely satisfied with what I'm already doing.

This isn't really a program anyway, but more a set of (loose) guidelines and ideas for studying classic literature, and a rationale for doing so. I enjoyed reading his thoughts on teaching and about his experiences in the classroom. There's also an extensive list of works in the back, though nothing one couldn't get from other sources.

 

Edited to add: I occasionally re-read Classics in the Classroom. All our literature discussions are informal at this stage, and I've found it helps restrain my urge to (1) ask questions with "correct" answers and, (2) move into Deconstructing Penguins mode of assigning a label and a purpose in a cookie-cutter fashion. I've posted it before, but my favourite section of Classics in the Classroom gets its title from a quote by a professor from his college days: "Any book worth its salt will provide you with the terms for its own interpretation!"

 

They do not write [books] hoping to be STUDIED. They write their books in rich, resonant, self-interpreting language, and this language is to be folded back on the book. With care. Each book is designed to open itself. [Followed by examples.]

 

 

...

 

 

What is gained by asking if Holden Caulfield is a

protagonist

? I do think that such terms should be part of what students learn, but we need not deceive ourselves that such helpful concepts are the path to enlightenment. That path is left by the author within the book, and if we do not make ourselves transparent and take the author's path, then it is pointless to look for external assistance in understanding the book.

 

Edited December 8, 2009 by nmoira

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think it's the goal of the elementary materials to teach parts of speech, parts of a sentence, etc., but rather to integrate these concepts into an examination of the larger system of language.

 

This is what makes me question whether MCT would be the right program for us. Teaching traditional grammatical concepts *IS* an important goal for me.

[PeterPan]

I'm sorry, I'm not explaining well. The classic literature is read in the writing program, but it is not full works. One might read a selection from Peter Pan, look over the vocabulary, dissect the sentence structure, look at a series of similar writings to determine which is by the same author, and then writing something similar or researching a point in the writing and writing a paragraph about what was learned, etc.

 

Ok, THIS I think is fabulous. The style issue was uninteresting to me, because my dd handles that nicely quite naturally. I understand where some boys might not, but that's not an issue in our house. But this other issue, the issue of what to write on and finding something that stimulates them or is worth writing about or about which they have something to say, THAT is the difficulty. WTM takes a rather bland approach and just says to outline and rewrite. Now you can outline and rewrite something more interesting like a biography; SWB even suggested doing this, said she's doing it with a ds. CW has them study and rewrite, which is similar to what MCT is doing, but there's never been a competitor product to that. WT is wonderful but only has two years, leaving you looking for the long-term solution. So to merge imitation *and* modern writing, that's interesting. And it sounds like that is what MCT is doing. He has the imitation approach of CW but he takes a more modern direction with what he has them writing and also has them writing original stuff. I have her doing PWME, which is great for analysis and outlining, but I'm not SURE how it will go when I ask her then to transfer and start writing original stuff. (Just thinking out loud here.) Should be fine, as the exercises lead up to it well, but that type of writing always goes best if they're actually ENGAGED in the topic and WANT to write about it, which it sounds like he's accomplishing.

 

So there, it sounds like we've boiled MCT down to classical-style analysis and imitation with a bent toward modern writing. CW is classical-style analysis and imitation sticking to the progymnasta progression, let the modern catch up when it can.

 

I don't know. It's all interesting to ponder. We're finishing a lot of our stuff and starting new stuff (something, whatever it ends up) in January.

[MyLittleWonders]

I am loving this thread as I have been mulling over the idea of MCT after next year (for somewhere between mid/late 4th grade and early 5th grade). I thought we would go direct with CW Aesop, etc., but I am liking what I learn about the was MCT teaches writing. Thank you to all who have shared. :)

[PeterPan]

Just for your edification, I throw out a little more from MCT/RFWP. http://www.rfwp.com/video.php At this link you have video clips of MCT speaking on a variety of things. I'll listen to the rest, but the one on formal language was interesting. Basically it seems he's fighting battles the homeschool community sorted out long ago. He's correcting things that aren't issues for us. We KNOW we need to teach formal grammar and formal writing. We're just looking for the BEST materials to do each thing. And I'm not sure someone who's in the throes of that is necessarily in the best position to see where the whole thing goes or see that whole progression from K-12. A school teacher is only responsible for doing the best he can in a particular year, and he's LIMITED by the students that come to him. I have a friend teaching high school english who is FLABBERGASTED by the lack of skills in her students, even her honors students.

 

I did NOT say MCT LA stuff is bad, because I do see some strengths to it and some things he does well. But I repeat, correcting a school movement is not the same as designing an ideal K-12 approach.

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm sorry, I'm not explaining well. The classic literature is read in the writing program, but it is not full works. One might read a selection from Peter Pan, look over the vocabulary, dissect the sentence structure, look at a series of similar writings to determine which is by the same author, and then writing something similar or researching a point in the writing and writing a paragraph about what was learned, etc.

 

So, the reading component of the writing is usually just a page or two of literature. We are not doing the complete reading program (Classics in the Classroom) because I'm completely satisfied with what I'm already doing.

Okay, thanks!

 

This is what makes me question whether MCT would be the right program for us. Teaching traditional grammatical concepts *IS* an important goal for me.

Hmmm... yeah, that is why I keep holding on to GWG. Maybe we can do both.

[FO4UR]

Just for your edification, I throw out a little more from MCT/RFWP. http://www.rfwp.com/video.php At this link you have video clips of MCT speaking on a variety of things. I'll listen to the rest, but the one on formal language was interesting. Basically it seems he's fighting battles the homeschool community sorted out long ago. He's correcting things that aren't issues for us. We KNOW we need to teach formal grammar and formal writing. We're just looking for the BEST materials to do each thing. And I'm not sure someone who's in the throes of that is necessarily in the best position to see where the whole thing goes or see that whole progression from K-12. A school teacher is only responsible for doing the best he can in a particular year, and he's LIMITED by the students that come to him. I have a friend teaching high school english who is FLABBERGASTED by the lack of skills in her students, even her honors students.

 

I did NOT say MCT LA stuff is bad, because I do see some strengths to it and some things he does well. But I repeat, correcting a school movement is not the same as designing an ideal K-12 approach.

 

Just so you know...I REALLY appreciate your thoughts in this thread. I'm still a good 2 years away from having to make a decision...but I'm trying to dissect what it is I want in a LA program. You bring up some good questions for me to ask myself.:001_smile:

[LizzyBee]

So to merge imitation *and* modern writing, that's interesting. And it sounds like that is what MCT is doing.

 

IMO, CW does this, too. Aesop and Homer teach imitative narrative writing, but the Diogenes level teaches essay writing. Herodotus teaches argumentation, and Demosthenes will teach the research paper.

[Julie in MN]

But I repeat, correcting a school movement is not the same as designing an ideal K-12 approach.

 

I don't see the connection here. The talk you reference is to a specific audience, which he apparently assumed needed to hear that schools need to be corrected. If he were speaking to a homeschool conference, he might have a different thesis statement.

 

I don't see this speech as the source and function of his whole technique. It is, apparently, the impetus behind his newest high school series, Academic Writing, which is much more formal than any homeschool materials I have seen thus far (but I haven't seen some of the Latin scholar-type materials, so I may have been traveling in the wrong circles).

 

Just my thoughts,

Julie

[MariannNOVA]

I am loving this thread as I have been mulling over the idea of MCT after next year (for somewhere between mid/late 4th grade and early 5th grade). I thought we would go direct with CW Aesop, etc., but I am liking what I learn about the was MCT teaches writing. Thank you to all who have shared. :)

 

We are using both Aesop and MCT, although we are only in Grammar Island in MCT so have not begun Sentence Island yet.

 

The twins (3rd grade) did IEW-TWSS in 2nd grade in private school and their writing skills are excellent. We began using AESOP as I do not care for IEW -- I LOVE Aesop, and we continue to use it along with MCT. I really became intrigued with MCT as it is ONE package for all of Language Arts -- I cannot tell you how much I love the continuity. My intention is to continue using Aesop with MCT.

 

With DD10 (fifth grade), she has excellent writing skills as well (again, thanks to IEW) and she is working in IEW-Medieval Theme Based Writing and has started MCT LA so the writing will come with that soon.

 

HTH

[Jen500]

I did NOT say MCT LA stuff is bad, because I do see some strengths to it and some things he does well. But I repeat, correcting a school movement is not the same as designing an ideal K-12 approach.

 

All these comments about MCT.....how long have you used his materials? Which levels? How familiar are you with each component?

[Pongo]

the way SWB educates her kids, all of whom are either moderately or profoundly gifted. I think she's chosen to mainstream the recs a bit so that people with more advanced (or struggling) kids have to go up or down a bit.

 

Actually, SWB herself does not call her kids gifted. In an interview she said;

 

SWB: The truth is that what most people want is something intangible; they want reassurance. I have been struck again this year how desperately so many people want to do a good job of homeschooling. Probably 60 percent of the questions I get are, essentially, requests for reassurance.

I suspect many parents think that worry is a signal that they're doing something wrong. Actually,I think all parents worry. I worry all the time, too. In my rational moments, I look at my kids and think, "I have four normal children." I don't think of them as extraordinarily gifted; they are just

good, happy, welleducated kids.

 

 

I think the reason she mainstreams recs has less to do with moving up or down, and more to do with a solid curriculum that sets a standard to whatever she uses for criteria. I think that just about any child(barring learining disabilities) with just about any mainstream program that is taught consistently, hand-fed, and steadily will see great results. :D

 

Sorry OP, I know this is neither here nor there.:)

Edited December 9, 2009 by Pongo

[Spy Car]

I asked only because I worry about MCT being enough. :) Of course, I also worry about FLL being enough. GWG is what I remember from school so I tend to gravitate to it.

 

I have no concern about it being enough. And I haven't seen any alternative that (to my taste) holds a candle to the MCT materials. I'm tremendously excited to use these, and I feel they appear (from everything I can gather) to be a dream-come-true in being the right style for us.

 

The poetry series alone takes my breath away. This is an absolutely inspiring way to teach children IMO. What compares with this? So I have no fear that the MCT program doesn't teach the nuts and bolts, you can see it in the samples through the years, in all the components.

 

I think (I hope) it will also inspire a love of language in a way that's different from any of the other options I've looked at (many of which strike me as quite "dreary").

 

But people have different tastes.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

I think (I hope) it will also inspire a love of language in a way that's different from any of the other options I've looked at (many of which strike me as quite "dreary").

 

But people have different tastes.

Good point. I am the kid who loved Public School readers and worksheets. GWG is my kind of thing. DD is a different kid than me by far.

[nmoira]

 

This is what makes me question whether MCT would be the right program for us. Teaching traditional grammatical concepts *IS* an important goal for me.

But I didn't say they aren't covered; they are. My point was that learning these concepts isn't the goal, but rather that the concepts are used to examine language in MCT's system, even at the earliest level. Language is the man's passion, and it shows; subject verb disagreement is not merely an error, it's akin to a tear in the fabric of the universe... it's just *wrong*. :D

[Spy Car]

Good point. I am the kid who loved Public School readers and worksheets. GWG is my kind of thing. DD is a different kid than me by far.

 

My son and I are so alike it's scary :D

 

This does make it easy for me in terms of knowing what he (and I) will like and dislike. When I see a program that makes me wish that's the way I'd been taught when I was a child, I latch on to it. And when I see things that would make me shrink into a pit of despair, I move on.

 

MCT is a very easy choice for me to consider.

 

Bill

[radiobrain]

There are so many points I would love to respond to, I don't know where to start...

 

luckily I have no time....:D

 

I could respond to the "gifted" part. Ugh, too much to go into there....

 

I will say that if I had had this program taught at my school, I would have a life long love affair with language. I hope that my boys may have the same, but I cannot control that. It is my job to expose and present to them the things that I feel will give them the best tools to use in their future. MCT provides not only the skeleton and framework upon which all writing/ language is draped upon, but the WHY of it. WHY it matters. WHY certain words are chosen. WHY certain words exist and how the have evolved. WHY your choices in language make a difference. They get a solid foundation, without the busywork, and it is placed in context.

 

It is both at an extremely high level, and yet simple and elegant. Perfect. it explains things so well, and simply, that it actually makes sense almost immediately and is not intimidating. It makes grammar, vocab and writing disarmingly approachable. THIS is why I love MCT.

 

I wouldn't expect everyone to feel the same way as I do, but I wish everyone who it *might* work with to know how it can.

 

I am on my second year, and I am still in love with it. It has passed whatever "flavor of the month" criteria for me, but then again, I have never been a "FOTM" type of girl. I have bought things here and there and here again, searching for something "better".... but I never looked again once I found MCT. I still supplement with other things, but not because I HAVE to, it is just in my nature. I like to do things a bit differently than written, and am confident in my ability to do so. I also am a singapore person, I have been doing that since earlybird 1A. I am lucky that I found that one right off the bat, or I would have been buying several math programs. I do LofF, murderous maths, key to... books, but not because singapore is lacking, it is because that's how I do this crazy home educating. :D

 

If I went by the logic of some of the posters on this, and another MCT thread, I would never know how successful anything was until after my kids are grown. I know that what works for some, might not work for others... and what works today might be forgotten tomorrow. I choose to trust my own judgement instead of others. Although I appreciate discussion and dissention.... but I can do w/o a wet blanket!

[Colleen in SEVA]

A few random thoughts...

 

1. I am not trying to convince people to use MCT. I can almost foresee that with all the recent posts some people are going to buy it, try a small part of it, think "it doesn't do XYZ", and from that point on anytime someone mentions MCT the usual posters will reply with "Oh, don't use MCT, it doesn't do XYZ." If you are happy with what you are using -- use it! If you have read extensively about MCT and every post you read has you screaming "Oh my!! This is incredible!!" then give it a try. Not everyone will have that reaction.

 

2. MCT is a perfect program for my oldest son. Other programs that I looked at and tried samples for were just... NOT for him. *shrug* I know there are lessons to be learned in being forced to learn from something that isn't suited to your style, but we are talking about his full language arts program for the next several years, I don't want something he or I dread. I own WWE, but doing the same thing week after week would be mind numbing for my oldest. I think CW & WWE/FLL are both GREAT programs... for other kids (and not because he is or isn't gifted). In fact, my tentative plan is to have my 2nd oldest use WWE/FLL. It's not that I don't think MCT is complete, but this particular child might do better with something more structured and predictable.

 

3. I was at the conference where they recorded the videos on the RFWP site. It was at the National Curriculum Network Conference at William & Mary, and the attendees were people who buy curriculum for the gifted programs of entire school districts. The theme this year will be "A Time For Excellence," and with workshops like "Technology Integration Knowledge in Action: Curriculum Based Learning Activity Types", and "Uncovering the Talents of Underserved Populations", the content is obviously not geared toward homeschoolers. On a side note, one of MCT's workshops this year will be -- "Five Essential Books For Gifted Children: This session will feature an unusual examination of five essential classics for gifted children. The focus will be not on the typical review of plot and characters, but on the inner characteristics of language that constitute the rigor gifted children need. The five books recommended are Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley; Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen; The Call of the Wild, by Jack London; The War of the Worlds, by H.G. Wells; and The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame".

 

4. What makes a "gifted" curriculum? Good question! Another workshop at this conference for gifted educators is "Srategies to Teach More Creatively While Teaching Creativity". Seriously? People pay money for this? Schools can't even agree on what to do with gifted kids, much less what to use to teach them -- or even what "gifted" means (MCT has a great essay on the RFWP website about schools who follow the "all kids are gifted" philosophy). MCT said that he has seen Ceasar's English used successfully in an 8th grade classroom to prepare the kids for high school level literature, and he has seen the same book used successfully in a 2nd grade classroom (though this was at a boarding school for gifted kids, not implying that all 7 year olds could handle CE!). Being smart, or reading well, or understanding without review does not make a child gifted. And whether or not a child is gifted will not determine who will excel with MCT's program and who will not.

 

5. Perhaps actual examples will help explain how MCT is different.

 

In Paragraph Writing Made Easy (the cover states grades 4-8), the student is breifly introduced to the idea of a topic sentence, then given the paragraph "Birds are animals with distinctive characteristics. For example, all birds have feathers. Birds also have beaks rather than teeth and wings instead of arms. In addition, birds lay eggs." Then there is a paragraph explaining to the student how to determine what the topic sentence is (find the key word which is the word that is repeated the most -- that is the topic). This is followed by 5 similar examples, then 6 sample paragraphs that they are to find the key word, count the number of times it appears, then underline the topic sentence. "Cargo ships carry goods from one port to another. One kind of cargo ship is a container ship, which carries goods in large crates called containers. Another kind of cargo ship carries bulk food such as grains, which are poured down chutes into the ship's hold. A third kind of cargo ship carries trucks and trains, which can be driven off the ship. ... The key words are cargo ship and they are repeated four times. The topic of this paragraph is cargo ships."

 

The next lesson is titled "Taking Notes in Outline Form" and students are given a worksheet with "I. A. B. C. D." lines to fill in for the paragraph "Worker bees are tremendously busy. They gather nectar from the flower. They build the honeycombs. They feed and clean the queen bee. They also protect the hive."

 

In lesson 6 of Paragraph Town (written for grades 4-5), after being introduced to the Gettysburg Address in lesson 5, students are asked to look at each of the 3 paragraphs and write a short title for each one, indicating what the paragraph is about. Lesson 7 then discusses topic sentences at length through a conversation between two characters, including different ways of using a topic sentence. In the teachers' section, it says "Topic sentences not only must frame the idea for the other sentences in the paragraph, they must also (usually) contain a connecting bridge back to the preceeding paragraph, so that the writing flows well without becoming confusing. The goal of the topic sentence is that the point of the paragraph will be clear to the reader, that the reader will not have to struggle through the paragraph trying to figure out what it is about. This is accomplished by wording the topic sentence so that it captures the idea of the paragraph, and also by including words that distinguish the topic of this paragraph from the topic of the preceeding paragraph. ... Discussion Questions: Can you imagine a situation in which you did not want the reader to know the topic of a paragraph until the end of the paragraph? In what situation might such a strategy be an advantage?" It then goes on to examine the use of verbals in the Gettysburg Address (which students learned about in Grammar Town) "Examine the address closely; it is only ten sentences long; what would happen if all verbals were removed from it? How important was Lincoln's knowledge of how to use phrases correctly?"

 

OK... now that I've typed all that... I forgot my other points... sigh.

[Capt_Uhura]

Colleen - Thank you so much for your write up! I had to laugh b/c I down own Paragraph WRiting Made Easy! Very interesting comparison!

 

you've got me thinking.....

 

Capt_Uhura

[Colleen in SEVA]

OH!! I remembered one more! :)

 

6. MCT *could be* a complete program. It depends on the student, it depends on how much writing you are doing in other content areas, it depends on the parent's goals for the student. Without elaborating on why, I am going to have my oldest go through Daily Grams starting in January. I also have him use the sentences in the MCT Practice books as copywork because he still writes 20% of his letters backwards on his writing assignments (not the same letters). This particular child needs this supplementation. *I* also really like Write With The Best, so I will have him do that while we are going through Grammar Town (Paragraph Town comes AFTER Grammer Town, I will not be having him do 2 writing programs at the same time). It isn't necessary, but we have a lot of time and he needs a *LOT* of physical practice in writing.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Colleen in SEVA